Evaluate an article Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead section A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section. Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Content A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another. Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Is the content up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Tone and Balance Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Sources and References A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books. Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Check a few links. Do they work? Organization and writing quality The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections. Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Images and Media Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Talk page discussion The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Overall impressions What is the article's overall status? What are the article's strengths? How can the article be improved? How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Examples of good feedback A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

Music of West Africa

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

We were asked to choose a culture to edit or write a Wikipedia page about. I have always been a fan of the rhythms associated with African music and reading about Neil Peart's travels cycling through West Africa, along all the people he encountered along the way, helped me pinpoint this specific area of Africa. I've been a drummer all my life so exposing myself to different styles can only benefit my musical repertoire.

Evaluate the article

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead section of the article introduces you to all the different genres of music to come out of West Africa, and does a good job of explaining how the music is influenced by both Islamic and indigenous secular music. It does a good job of explaining where the two styles tend to divulge, but it also goes on to introduce a wide variety of genres that aren't explained any further. It would be nice if each of these had a brief explanation in this article instead of being expected to go to each individual Wikipedia page to learn anything about them.

After the introduction the article does a good job of explaining the popular music that came out of there over the past 100 years but I think it can go a little deeper here. I am also wondering how much information is available from before these times. I cannot find any sources on music dating before the 19th century so that seems like the best place for me to try and dig. Most of the modern concepts can be expanded on at best, but I think my efforts are best used to bring new information as opposed to solidify existing. I think that the article tends to lean to a western bias as that is where the majority of the information focuses. The most complete section is the popular music section and the majority of the information focuses on genres that came out of Colonial West Africa.

The article doesn't seem to be biased or written with any ill intentions to misrepresent the facts. I think that the article was more than likely written by someone from a western background. When I read the article I worry that all of the issues I seem to be noticing are all things that have potential to effect me. Because I speak English I cannot access literature in other languages and this might be one of the reasons that the article has a tendency to show a western bias. I don't feel as though there is any persuasion going on. I think the author had good intentions when writing the article and gave a wonderful jumping off point.

The sources seem to be well chosen. Most are recent articles and the majority are academic journals so I think the author did their due diligence when sourcing this information. Fortunately it seems I have other sources that can add information that might be omitted so far such as rhythmic structure and scales. Every link I checked worked properly.

The organization and flow of the article is good. All information is given chronologically and in order of what the reader needs to know at that moment. I might suggest that the instruments go before the pop music but I think that is a personal choice as I don't think the instruments give any context that allows you to better understand the popular music.

There aren't many photos used and I think that could be a vast improvement that would make the entire article more interesting. Consider it the kitchen renovation of my suggestions. The images are where they need to be, it just seems as though the article isn't complete as in the list of instruments only some of them have accompanying photos.

The article is a part of "a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia" and has a page that has more discussions and resources that will help me write this article. There is a call to delete the page as the person believes that the only purpose of the current article is to link you through to other articles. While I did notice that there are more links available than necessary, I don't think deleting the article is an appropriate action because it still contains valuable information. It does say an image was removes so perhaps I there was a possible issue that has been taken care of. There hasn't been much action on the talk page but I did notice that someone was commenting and editing the article in May so I wonder if they are still working on information as well.

I think the articles rating as stub-class is appropriate because there is plenty of room for improvement where it can be expanded on, or where new areas can be added to make the page more comprehensive.